ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Linking national primary care electronic health records to individual records from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey: evaluating the likelihood of linkage based on patient health.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the impact of discordant and missing demographic information on population health assessments using linked electronic health records and Census Bureau microdata.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Validating 8 Area-Based Measures of Social Risk for Predicting Health and Mortality.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Post-COVID-19 conditions identified by ICD-10-CM code in a cohort of U.S. primary care patients, 2021 - 2023.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the likelihood of linking electronic health records (EHRs) to restricted individual-level American Community Survey (ACS) data based on patient health condition. MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic health records (2019-2021) are derived from a primary care registry collected by the American Board of Family Medicine. These data were assigned anonymized person-level identifiers (Protected Identification Keys [PIKs]) at the U.S. Census Bureau. These records were then linked to restricted individual-level data from the ACS (2005-2022). We used logistic regressions to evaluate match rates for patients with health conditions across a range of severity: hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
resultsAmong more than 2.8 million patients, 99.2% were assigned person-level identifiers (PIKs). There were some differences in the odds of receiving an identifier in adjusted models for patients with hypertension (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.63, 1.77) and diabetes (OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.22), relative to those without. There were only small differences in the odds of matching to ACS in adjusted models for patients with hypertension (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.04), diabetes (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.03), and chronic kidney disease (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.06), relative to those without. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionOur work supports evidence-building across government consistent with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 and the goal of leveraging data as a strategic asset. Given the high PIK and ACS match rates, with small differences based on health condition, our findings suggest the feasibility of enhancing the utility of EHR data for research focused on health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.